The Risk of Re‐Institutionalization: Examining Rates of Admission to Long‐Term Care Among Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Over Time
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite efforts toward community living for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, there is a risk of re‐institutionalization through placement in long‐term care facilities. To examine patterns of admission to long‐term care facilities in Ontario, Canada among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities across key demographic and clinical variables, a cohort of 50 670 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities was identified using administrative and clinical health data. Proportions admitted to long‐term care facilities between 2009 and 2013 were compared to proportions in a random sample of the general population. A greater proportion of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities were admitted to long term care over the 4‐year period (4.5 vs. 0.9%). Mental health and addiction problems as well as frailty were more strongly associated with admission among adults without intellectual and developmental disabilities. The proportion of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities admitted annually dropped from 1.6% (2009/10) to 1% (2012/13) while it remained stable among those without disabilities (∼0.3%); no change was observed in the proportion of younger adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A small proportion of younger adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities continue to be admitted to long‐term care. Research is needed to understand factors which predict admission in this group as well as age‐appropriate alternatives to long‐term care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it